Category Archives: Uncategorized

The new schedule for Legal 500 EMEA is online, with both referees and submissions due in August (see below for dates). It’s important to give yourselves plenty of time to get ready for this, as the new submission process is now in effect.

While the information required remains basically the same, the new form can seem fiddly to the unaccustomed eye, especially if you are used to just ‘topping and tailing’ your Chambers submissions. So give yourself plenty of time to prepare, and remember that it is vital that your referees are sent in on time to ensure they will be contacted.

The changes that Legal 500 started to roll out for the UK research are now implemented, meaning that they will only accept submissions in their own template, submitted according to their new guidelines (click the Asia Pacific section under the How Do You Get Involved for details).

While the changes are understandable – I have seen enough submissions to understand the varying quality and length of the kinds of submissions Legal 500 were getting! – the new forms can seem fiddly and time consuming to fill in if you are used to a more freeform approach, or simply editing your Chambers submissions to fit. So while the 18 May deadline may seem nice and far away, if you haven’t already started the process, you should do so as quickly as possible to ensure that everything is completed promptly.

Confidentiality labelling: take extra care!

One of the most common teething problems I saw when working with clients on the UK guide was confusion over the confidentiality labelling on the new form, which isn’t always intuitive – so given that this is the first time with the new system, I would advise those tasked with both filling in and checking the forms to give themselves plenty of time to check that everything is correctly labelled according to the new formats.

Legal 500 UK is out this week and Chambers UK will launch shortly. It’s a rare year when anyone will be completely happy with their results, so here are some steps to take if you have an issue with the rankings.

Take a deep breath and ask – do they have a point?

It’s easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to the rankings, especially if you haven’t been included or haven’t got the rankings you think you deserve. But it’s important not to over-react – firing off a furious email in haste risks souring any future relationship with the guides. Consider this: are there obvious factors that have impacted on your ranking? The guides have such long lead times that it’s easy to be angry the ranking doesn’t reflect recent growth, etc, which may have happened during the course of the research, or personnel changes which have not had the chance to bed in, and the like. Sometimes, you just have to accept that some things take a while to filter through and they won’t be reflected till next year.

Did you make obvious mistakes in the process?

Again, a long time between the submissions process and the publication date means it’s easy to forget, but before you rage at the directories, ask yourself: did we contribute to this? Sending submissions or referees late can hamper the process and affect rankings, as can sending in a small number of referees or a partial submission (particularly for a competitive section). There may be an obvious – and easily fixed – reason for a disappointing showing.

Is it an actual mistake?

Before contacting the guides, it’s important to assess whether what you’re unhappy about is actually a factual error, or just a take on information that you don’t quite agree with. Naming a corporate lawyer in the real estate tables, incorrectly identifying a client, referring to a deal your firm didn’t act on: these are mistakes. Saying that your firm is, for instance, best known for its expertise in employment work when you’re pushing yourself as a corporate practice is their interpretation of their research; it’s not necessarily wrong. You need to react to these differently.

Incorrect category rankings

Here’s where Chambers’ practice of sending out interim notification of the rankings wins out over Legal 500. If you get notification that Lawyer X is mistakenly ranked in employment when he should be in insurance, or Lawyer Y is ranked in the North West when she now works out of London, simply email the editor, or profiles contact (the person the notification will have come from), and let them know. It’s important to be aware though that this may not simply be a matter of switching tables: someone who gets enough feedback to appear in a regional table may not be included in the far more crowded London market, and some tables are more competitive than others, so the lawyer in question may end up not being included in the final guide.

Factual errors post-publication

Email the relevant editor straight away and make sure your email has a subject heading that makes it clear there is a factual error that needs addressing. (Immediately post-publication, the editors are inundated with emails asking for feedback or explanation, but they will try to prioritise fixing any errors). In such enormous books, it’s inevitable that some mistakes will slip through – albeit impressively rarely – but both guides will generally make amendments to the online versions of their guides if there are genuine errors in the text as quickly as they can. You can also email them personnel updates if partners have left.

“That’s not us!” What you can do when you disagree with the editorial

The short answer is, not much. You can email the relevant editor and ask just why they’ve said that, and explain why you disagree, and often they will be willing to give feedback on their decisions, though this may be limited, and this willingness will vary between editors (and if you disagree with everything, you may have to accept that it’s their guide, and you’re stuck with their opinions). Frustrating as it may be, the best thing to do is address this in the next round of submissions and interviews – remember, the guides want to get it right, so they are happy to listen to your feedback, providing you are reasoned in your approach. Sending furious emails/shouting down the phone at the editor is pointless and counter-productive.

“Help! The guide has named a client who wanted to be kept confidential!”

This is a situation that is as unfortunate as it is mercifully VERY rare. Again, it’s easy to rectify swiftly online with an email to the editor. In rare cases, where the mistake has been entirely on the directory’s side (in all honesty, this is not usually the case – these mistakes most often happen because cases or clients are incorrectly or inconsistently labelled in the submission(s)) it may be worth asking that the editor or researcher contacts the client to apologise for the error, though again this is up to their discretion. Whatever happens, there’s pretty much nothing to be done about the hard copies, so it’s worth adhering to the guiding principle that if it would be absolutely catastrophic to have a case or client identified, don’t mention them by name in the submission.

Avoiding a repeat of mistakes

It may be worth stating in the next submission that an error was made last year and how it was corrected, and draw attention to the fact in any telephone interview (nicely, of course!). Review the information you are sending the guides to ensure it is clear, and that all guidelines re: confidentiality are consistently adhered to.

Get a head start on next year!

While there is never a guarantee you will get the ranking you want – the hard fact is the guides’ research may never agree with your self-assessment, or you may never quite fit into the way they categorise certain practice areas – the best way to maximise your chances of getting a fair ranking is to engage proactively with the process. Give yourself time to prepare a clear, concise submission that highlights your key points and to compile a list of referees who will be responsive and positive, and get all of your information to the guides in the format and time frame they outline.

Need help? Contact me at traceysinclair23@gmail.com to see how a consultant can help.

It’s September, and for some of us in the UK, that means only one thing – yes, the UK directories season is looming! But while most firms put off even thinking about this until they have to (usually when the results are published or Chambers schedule is announced), putting a little time in now can save a lot of time (and money!) later. And even those firms without the interest in, or budget for, substantial outside help can benefit from some professional advice before they get started.

So here are some things to think about now, to save yourself pain later:

What worked in your process last year – and what didn’t?

Which submissions were in good shape, done on time and caused you least hassle – and can you replicate that in other departments? Some firms repeat the same mistakes every year and wonder why things never get easier. Not all problems can be fixed – there will always be other demands on your time, and client work obviously has to come first – but recognising that the same issues always arise and thinking about solutions NOW can help minimise them.

Do your lawyers always leave choosing the referees till the last minute? If so, focusing on referees before the submissions are drafted might be useful.

Are you expecting busy partners to draft submissions when this could be handed off to others in the team?

Do you have simple guidelines in place to help those unfamiliar with the process?

If your submissions are written by junior lawyers, have you identified who is doing this yet and made sure they are available? (I’ve seen firms blithely assume lawyer X will handle it again, without realising they were just about to go on secondment or maternity leave…)

Thinking about these questions in advance will allow you to get the ball rolling faster when you start the process in earnest.

What information can you prep now?

For most firms, certain parts of the submission will need little changing year on year and can be used with only minor edits and updates (the overview, lawyer bios etc.): the directories know you are busy, and they don’t expect you to reinvent the wheel every year.

If there are submissions where you know you fell down last year – things were left to the last minute, or the final version didn’t get your message across the way you wanted it to – you can use this time to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen again this year. I’ve seen lots of clients streamline the process by preparing or polishing their core text in advance so that it just needs minor updates once the work highlights have been chosen.

Can a professional consultant help?

Not every firm needs or wants – or has the budget for – a professional directories consultant, but here’s where spending a little can save a lot. If you consistently find you struggle to get the rankings you want, or your submissions never quite gel, or even if you have a nagging feeling you’re missing a trick, it may be worth speaking to a consultant. And while retaining someone to handle the whole process can be costly, there are some surprisingly inexpensive options available.

Submission review: If you’ve never used a consultant, having one or two of your submissions reviewed before you start the next cycle can identify recurring problems, and help create suggested text for tricky areas of the submission (usually overview, feedback, sometimes work highlights).

This is usually fairly inexpensive, and can be enormously productive: it can identify areas in the submission where you are including more information than the guides need – so help you cut back how long you spend on the damn things! – and offer a fresh perspective.

You may think your key messages are coming across clearly, but someone unfamiliar with your firm may not. The good news is most lessons are easily transferable across practice areas – having one or two submissions reviewed will help you eliminate issues across multiple areas – and the vast majority of problems are easily solved. I’ve worked with firms who spent a lot of money on Chambers Confidential reports (which can, of course, be useful in certain instances) to try and figure out why they weren’t getting the results they wanted, when a quick submission review at a fraction of the price identified obvious – and easily mended – problems. Once these were addressed, the firm saw their rankings improve, and cut down the time spent preparing the submissions.

Guidelines review: If you handle your submissions in-house, having a professional review your internal guidelines can also be useful. Most consultants will have both in-house experience with at least one guide and will have worked with multiple law firms – they will be able to highlight any tips and tricks you may have missed, again at a relatively low cost.

Need more comprehensive assistance? Start shopping now!

The most popular consultants get booked up very quickly and, though they may be able to squeeze in last minute help depending on their schedule, if you have a lot of submissions or require a lot of help, it’s important to book someone’s services in plenty of time.

Referee feedback is one of the most important elements of the directories’ research, but many law firms stumble when selecting referees.

So before you send in that spreadsheet, ask yourself the following questions:

1.Have you asked them (and have they said yes)?

It’s easy to assume a client will be OK with it because you have a good relationship, but they might already get asked a lot, or there might be a company policy in place against giving external feedback. Also, it’s just polite!

2.Have you worked for this client in the last year?

It looks suspicious to a directory if the last good feedback you can muster up is from 4 years ago…

3.Can they talk about more than one lawyer/department?

This isn’t essential, but when referee numbers are limited you can get more ‘bang for your buck’ if someone can comment on more than one person.

4.Are you SURE they are happy with your service?

Really, really sure? And if they are a client of more than one department, are you sure they are happy with the firm as a whole? A grievance with another team can spill into your feedback.

5.Will they answer emails?

A lot of research is done by email. The most positive feedback in the world is no use if the client never gets round to sending it…

6.Have you put them down for more than one directory or award application – if so, do they know and are they OK with that?

‘Referee fatigue’ is a real danger: clients can get very sick of being constantly asked for feedback, so you need to ensure you don’t overuse them.

7.Are they from different organisations?

Providing multiple contacts from one organisation can backfire as it may annoy the client (‘you already spoke to my colleague!’) or can look to the directories like you only have one good client. This isn’t a hard and fast rule, but still something to consider.

8.Are they referees for lawyers you wish to get into the tables/move up the rankings?

Remember those at the top of the tables will likely get plenty of peer recognition so may be less reliant on client feedback (though this will depend on how individual guides work, so again is not an absolute rule).

9.Do they come from a client you have mentioned in your highlight deals?

If you can’t provide any clients that match your big deals, the directories may wonder why. (This will of course vary from practice area to practice area – in areas where deals are very sensitive, it’s to be expected clients will be reluctant to be put forward as referees.)

10.Will they have any frame of reference with regard to other firms?

If you work in a sector where many of your clients are individuals rather than organisations (eg, family, private client, personal injury, trusts and estates) you may be better off putting forward other clients or professional contacts who are more able to compare your services with those provided by competing law firms. This is especially true if your clients are individuals who are not legally sophisticated (for instance, in the clinical negligence or personal injury spheres, where you may be the only lawyer they have ever instructed): they may agree to be a referee out of obligation to you, but may find the process upsetting or intrusive, and their feedback is likely to be of limited use.

Final bonus question: Are you using the correct spreadsheet?

It sounds obvious, but every year I stop clients from sending Legal 500 spreadsheets to Chambers and vice versa (or have spreadsheets where information is copied across from one to the other, with little or no attention paid to the difference in formatting). You need to send the directories the info they need in the format they request, so it can be properly uploaded onto their systems.

If the answer to any of these questions is no, you may need to think again.

Need help?

For further advice on choosing and managing referees, or any aspect of the directories or legal awards process, feel free to contact me: traceysinclair23@gmail.com

Love them or loathe them, legal directories like Chambers and Legal 500 are an influential part of the modern legal landscape. And, as they become more ubiquitous, so a new brand of professional has emerged: the legal directories consultant. So what is a legal directories consultant – and do you need to hire one?

What does a legal directories consultant actually do?
This answer to this is, generally, whatever you need them to do. It’s a field mostly populated by individuals and (often very) small businesses, most of whom offer a service that is bespoke to their clients’ needs – this could be as extensive as handling the entire directories process, from writing the submissions to sitting in on interviews and coaching lawyers, or as little as giving your final submissions a review and ‘tweak’, or even doing a one-off talk to your partners or BD staff on how to make the process more efficient – I do a ‘demystifying the directories’ presentation that I’ve now done to a number of firms in the UK and Europe which can be used to kickstart the process, either as a one-off or as part of my wider offering, and I imagine others offer similar services. Some specialise in particular jurisdictions or for particular Guides, based on the experience of the consultant (say, Asia, Latin America or the US), or may target particular firms (for example, some specialise in working for barristers’ chambers). There are also companies that offer a less bespoke but more affordable package aimed at making it easier to handle the process in-house, or firms which offer directories advice as part of a wider outsourced communications or PR package.

Is it expensive?
As the above answer will indicate, that is a ‘how long is a piece of string’ question: it depends on the level of service you need. You may be billed for individual submissions, by the hour or a flat ‘package’ rate: this will depend on the consultant and the level of support you require. But most consultants will aim at significantly reducing the amount of time fee-earners have to spend on submissions, which can mean they virtually pay for themselves.

Who is a typical consultant – and why should I listen to them?
Most consultants will have considerable experience of working on submissions, and many will have worked in-house in positions of authority in the major directories. My own experience – which is not atypical – is several years at Chambers, working across their books (so covering most jurisdictions) and including editorship of the UK book, followed up by a stint in-house at a Top 50 law firm. This kind of background means that a consultant will know – often from bitter experience! – what it’s like to be a researcher, what the guides are looking for in terms of information, and how best to present it.

They also bring an objective eye and an authoritative voice to proceedings: because they are free from the kind of internal politics that even the best law firm will have, they can look at your submissions clearly and tell you whether you are presenting your strengths to the best effect, and can also give you a realistic view of your chances. Because they are experts – and you are paying them for their expertise – their opinions will often carry more weight with fee-earners.

Can they definitely improve my rankings?
Absolutely not. There is no magic wand here, and hiring someone who used to work at one of the directories doesn’t buy you special favours. What they can do is maximise your chances of getting a better ranking by improving the way you communicate with the guides – and in my experience, better submissions and clearer information help the researchers learn more about your firm and can lead to more recognition, but this is in no way guaranteed. Looking at my own client list, almost if not all have seen some improvement in their rankings; many have achieved best-ever rankings with my help, and generally see year-on-year improvement. A consultant can also help if you are generally satisfied but have one or two areas that you just can’t seem to crack: sometimes it takes as little as a one-off submission review to identify where you are going wrong.

So do I really need to hire a consultant, or is this just a sales pitch?
Obviously, if you feel you need a consultant, please do get in touch! But to be serious, only you and your firm know the answer to that: the first step is identifying what your issues are. If it’s resource, then hiring a temp to handle the admin might be a better idea, or looking at improving your internal systems so that information is collated over the year rather than pulled together in a desperate rush. Check you are not making obvious, easy to fix mistakes, such as sending submissions in very late, or not telling your referees you have put them forward. Join free forums such as LinkedIn, where professionals discuss these things; you might find you have not being doing something that is very obvious! If you want feedback from the directories themselves, try contacting the editors direct, setting up meetings, and attending talks, such as Chambers’ Meet The Editor sessions. Chambers Confidential – while not cheap – can also be a useful way of identifying what the market and your clients are saying about you, and finding out if there are issues that you need to address.

There are lots of options out there:
A directory consultant can be invaluable to some firms, but might be the wrong fit for others, so it is worth considering what you need and shopping around. One thing is for certain, though – the directories aren’t going anywhere. I know from my own in-house experience that clients are increasingly asking for rankings in pitches, and independent verification from the directories can be a powerful marketing tool. Dealing with them in the most effective and cost-efficient way possible should now be part of every law firm’s marketing and business development plan.

Further questions?If you think a directories consultant might be the right option for you, why not drop me an email: traceysinclair23@gmail.com

Now that both this year’s Legal 500 and Chambers UK are published – and the first deadlines for the latter suddenly seem awfully close – most UK firms will have started their submissions process for the next round (you have started, haven’t you?). So what should you be thinking about?

Make sure you use the new Chambers template: it’s quite a change from last year, so it’s important you use the correct one. (And remember: follow the instructions. If they say they want a work highlight to be a page long, they don’t mean ‘except if you think it’s really important’. They’ve designed the template to give them what they want, so stick to it!)

Know how many referees you can send – and start contacting them now! You’re allowed 20 referees for almost all UK areas (see the research schedule for exceptions). Even if you can’t fill the quota (not all practice areas or teams will justify the full 20), make sure you’re maximising your chances by contacting your referees and asking for permission now, not a couple of weeks before Christmas when everyone has a lot else on their mind!

Check out the new Practice Area Definition page: this is especially important where categories have changed, such as Litigation and International Arbitration.

Need help? Be quick! Most good directory consultants get booked up far in advance, so if you are despairing of the whole process and want someone to manage it from start to finish, you’ve likely missed your chance, sorry! But if you need help on a few submissions where you’re struggling to finesse your message or you need some advice, they might be able to squeeze you in, so why not ask? I always do my best to accommodate clients who come to me only after Chambers has been published, and am sure it’s the same with most of the other established consultants. And you may need less help than you think: sometimes the problem is an easy quick fix, or you just need some guidance on how best to get your message across, or some editing to get your information within the guidelines. So now is the time to ask – it might save you some time and stress later down the line!

Start thinking about the next deadline BEFORE the holidays: Remember, the regional deadline for Legal 500 and the next batch of Chambers deadlines will come around sooner than you think! And everyone tends to be swamped when they come back in January, and suddenly you don’t have long at all to get everything done. At least start thinking now about referees, work highlights, etc. so you don’t have it all to do when you’re still recovering from Christmas…

Chambers has created a new submission template for their directories. The ‘front end’ remains much the same, but the client lists and work highlights are split into Publishable and Confidential, and you can have up to 10 work highlights in each: good news for those who want to include more work examples, though perhaps those firms whose work is by necessity all confidential may feel slightly chagrined to only be able to submit 10 highlights. (Or possibly relieved, depending…!)

If you’re in the middle of prepping your submissions for the next set of deadlines, don’t panic: they say they will accept the old templates for now. The good news is if you want to transfer that content to the new template, the basic structure is the same: it shouldn’t require too much work.

I’m not a fan of New Year’s Resolutions, or January fresh starts – January is a miserable month, why make it harder for yourself? But, that said, I think doing regular audits of where you are and what you have achieved – both on a personal and professional basis – is an incredibly useful habit to get into. With that in mind, I’ve been looking at how my business has grown and progressed over the past year, including expanding into new areas. Of course, since it is a business, this is also to highlight new services I offer – so if you think I can help your business at all, do let me know…

‘Demystifying Directories’ presentation – this continues to be a popular option for law firm clients who want to get to grips with the Legal Directories process, and I’ve now done this in front of fee-earners and marketing/BD staff in several European countries as well as to a number of London and regional firms.

Expanding client base – the bulk of my work comes from personal referrals and recommendations, and I have seen a significant influx of new law firm clients in the past 12 months. I have now advised, or continue to advise, regional, City and international UK law firms, as well as those in Europe, the US, Asia (China, Singapore), Australia, Africa, the Middle East and offshore jurisdictions. If any Canadian or New Zealand firms fancy helping me tick off those countries, do give me a shout…

Awards applications – this has been a real area of growth for me over the past couple of years, and, pleasingly, several of my clients have been shortlisted for or won awards. This can seem a very straightforward job – since most application forms are so short – but distilling your key message into a concise format can be very tricky.

Websites – I have been involved in the overhaul of a major City firm website, as well as doing smaller, ad hoc pieces for other firms.

Magazine work – as well as my credited work, which includes articles for Better Business and GC Magazine, I’ve expanded my ‘ghost writing’ repertoire to a number of other legal, technical and business publications, as well as securing a regular editing gig.

Corporate Comms – again, a growing area for me, with work this year including drafting annual reports, and editing practice area guides. I’ve also done some corporate blogging.

Pitches – while I’m rarely involved with the early, information gathering stages of these, I have been seeing more work doing a ‘final polish’, particularly where international clients – for whom English is not their first language – want to ensure they have the correct tone for English language pitches.

As well as this, the more ‘creative’ side of my business continues to thrive – I’ve published two new fiction books this year already (!), and continue to write for theatre website Exeunt; I’ve also co-written a play which was performed at the Tristan Bates Theatre and Brighton Fringe, and seen one of my previous plays revived, at the White Bear and (again) the Tristan Bates. So all in all, a pretty good 2015 – let’s hope 2016 is even better…

Hopefully if you’re submitting for Legal 500’s EMEA Guide this year your submissions are already well under way – but do remember that the deadline for referees is a week earlier. So you need to send in your referees by 3 August, and the submissions are due on 10 August.